才 radical: "talent" not "genius"

Yeah, I agree that it’s going to cause confusion, but that’s why I think there’s a good argument to be made for either side.

You would still have to explain why they’re different from the Kangxi radicals in either case.

And then we would have threads about “why don’t you just call them radicals”? :wink:

5 Likes

Because “radicals” is a trademark owned by Disney

9 Likes

two more likes

2 Likes

You sure that’s not “rat”icals? :joy:

4 Likes

No it’s probably paticles.

4 Likes

I’m usually one to defend WK’s choices, but …

Talent/genius I can live with. The one that gets me is trying to force the 月 radical to always mean “moon” in mnemonics.

Things are so much more sensible if you are aware of the にくづき usage (meat/body).

8 Likes

The 月 radical has always meant meat, based on the traditional Japanese legend of バート・シンプソン

6 Likes

Yeah, we say 肉月 (pronounced ròu yuè) in Chinese for the same phenomenon. Kanji etymology can be helpful from time to time. :slight_smile:

Very traditional. :rofl:

7 Likes

Yeah, I think at least a brief explanation when you get to 腕 or something like that to make learners aware of it would have been good.

6 Likes

Those who can, do
Those who can’t, teach
Those who can’t teach, teach gym

3 Likes

Those who can’t teach gym, have a free period to do their reviews
:joy:

5 Likes

I appears to me that Chinese teachers are usually rigid (narrow-minded?) and more traditional. Giving names to parts and marking mnemonics, aren’t their ways. Hand muscle memory are a big part, not the eyes.

Many things aren’t made explicit - I just have to understand them. Like, dictionaries are categorized by radicals and every Hanzi has one radical, but then people definitely understand inner parts of the Hanzi, but they aren’t designated as the radical of the Hanzi. It’s not that much of a secret, only that I can’t really search in a dictionary.

Sometimes true etymologies / differentiation help. Sometimes false etymologies and made-up names help too.

To me, having more radicals / parts, with a name / meaning, is helpful. Having an unchanged stable name might be helpful. It might help differentiating even the same origins, the same radicals. Not sure about lumping together of the sake of convenience.

Then, Kanji may change as a social phenomenon, natives won’t bother make it logical for everything. More of what gets popular.

1 Like

Fair enough, but it also depends on the teacher. I’ve had a lot of teachers who pointed out elements that were often forgotten, and the teachers who introduced me to more complex Chinese characters frequently used radical names in Chinese to highlight kanji components. (I’m not just talking about the dictionary radicals – most native Chinese speakers can probably guess the classifying radical of a kanji because it’s common, but people don’t have them all memorised – because they also pointed out other bits.) One thing that is true is that we’re always taught characters in order to be able to write them, so that tends to be the lens through which things are viewed.

Yeah, sure, and I always break my kanji down into multiple parts, but most dictionaries just can’t or won’t list all the parts because that would make them much bigger than they need to be. Etymology dictionaries are the only ones that provide a breakdown, honestly. The rest of the time, we have to either know that certain components exist, or we have to make something up on our own. Kanji learning courses like WK also provide breakdowns, of course. In some cases, the ‘real’ etymology of a kanji is too far removed from how it looks now, so it’s not really a bad thing to replace it with something simpler (e.g. the original form of 法 was , but I’m not sure it will help everyone to know how the original character came about).

Some kanji meanings aren’t logical to begin with, or are the result of a lot of meaning shifts over time. In some other cases, some components are actually references to a particular sound or to another kanji altogether, and that’s what provides the meaning, even though it’s not at all obvious, even if you know all the components in the kanji. In short, what I’m saying is that language in general is often illogical, or even the result of mistakes, and even natives won’t always have good explanations. It’s not really a matter of ‘bothering’ to make things logical – I think a lot of qualified Chinese (and maybe Japanese?) teachers learnt and teach kanji using components and etymology, and it’s not too hard to find kanji etymology resources in either language – but rather a matter of whether there’s even a logical breakdown in the first place. That aside, I think that a lot of native teachers assume – perhaps correctly; I really don’t know – that foreign learners of a language don’t need or want to delve into an area that is heavily researched by scholars, and which may seem too technical as a result. (I have a friend who tried to learn Japanese, and I could have broken down lots of kanji for him, but when I tried, he said it was just too much. A lot of it is logical for me, but without foundational knowledge, it can be overwhelming for some people.)

3 Likes

Some may want to know, and get too distracted. Some may have a good common sense that it might be a less important / lower priority part.

1 Like

I suppose that it depends on the learner, yes. However, my point was more that this is the reason – I think – teachers tend to teach kanji in a simplified way, instead of actually giving people etymology. I find etymology more logical most of the time, but some people don’t want to have to spend time learning the meanings of components first, and then the meanings of kanji that use them. In other words, while I think using etymology can help people learn kanji faster later on, it can be a slower way to start learning, and that may not appeal to people.

1 Like

And the value of a good pair of boots!

3 Likes

If it’s Blue, you should just accept it as a mnemonic device. If its the pink one you could always just add a synonym and call it a day.

Thank you Mr. Kneebly

1 Like